Talk:Battle of King's Landing
Name The title's okay, but given how it's very one-sided and the massive civilian casualties, wouldn't "Massacre" or "Second Sack" be more appropriate? Venividivici0 (talk) 03:48, May 13, 2019 (UTC) :I'd vote for the Second Sack of King's Landing because that's just hilarious :Sabovia (Message Wall) | :"Second Sack"? What? Is this battle part of Robert's Rebellion? No. People will be searching for "Battle of King's Landing". Not "Second Sack" or "Massacre". --Potsk (talk) 03:53, May 13, 2019 (UTC) ::The title is conjectural (as indicated at the top of the page) and created before the episode aired, and having seen it, yes, I agree that there might be a more fitting title than "battle..." but I'm not sure. I don't think "Massacre" would be it, though, given that the objective was conquest, not slaughter, even if that was what happened (what conquest isn't a massacre though?). Not "Second Sack" either - that would imply there was a first sack, which there was in Robert's Rebellion, but that was a different conflict entirely. Naming it Second Sack would imply there was another sack in this same conflict (see: Sack of Rome). So... I would either probably name it Sack of King's Landing (war for Westeros) or rename it Sack of King's Landing and rename the current Sack of King's Landing to Sack of King's Landing (Robert's Rebellion), while creating a disambiguation page. Still needs to be noted that it is conjectural. Not sure though. Reddyredcp (talk) 03:54, May 13, 2019 (UTC) :::Where did any sacking occur, though? --Potsk (talk) 04:09, May 13, 2019 (UTC) ::: ::: :1.) Yes you're right. Calling it the Second would be a misnomer. My bad :2.) And yeah, all sieges/battles are massacres to an extent. But the episode really emphasized that the level of destruction and death was high even by medieval standards. I've no doubt that both in the next episode and within the hypothetical fictional history of Westeros, the needless carnage will be a huge point of contention and significance. I was thinking at first Sack may be even too weak a word; the Rape of King's Landing (a la Nanking) is what came to my mind but obviously that's a bit of a needlessly charged title. So I stand by either Sack or Massacre :3.) Did any sacking occur? Umm, that was basically the entire episode. The destruction, death and rape were all there. Knowing the Dothraki, I'm sure looting occurred off-screen. Venividivici0 (talk) 04:21, May 13, 2019 (UTC) ::Looting of what? It was all burnt to the ground. Plus something that may have happened off-screen doesn't define the entire event. --Potsk (talk) 04:42, May 13, 2019 (UTC) Battle? More like the genocide of King's Landing. 1992Toph (talk) 12:07, May 13, 2019 (UTC) Offering up Burning of King's landing, Razing of King's landing and Destruction of King's Landing as alternatives. --SonOfZeus1200 14:57, May 13, 2019 (UTC) Should we not name it the Battle of Fire and Blood? The 'Game Revealed' episode referenced it as such, and it keeps the theme in common with Battle of Ice and Fire .Bpste1 (talk) 15:31, May 13, 2019 (UTC) This battle was named as the siege of King's Landing in one of the behind the scenes videos on GoT's YouTune channel by I believe DB Weiss.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:54, May 13, 2019 (UTC) Alternatively; I think the Fall of King's Landing '''is a great title. Bpste1 (talk) 08:32, May 14, 2019 (UTC) :That's already used by another page. --Potsk (talk) 08:35, May 14, 2019 (UTC) Why not '''Assault on King's Landing? Lady Junky 13:13, May 14, 2019 (UTC) *Again, the Siege of King's Landing is used by the writers/ producers on GOT's behind the scenes video if I remember correctly. I believe it's the 10 minute video, not the 35 minute one.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:16, May 14, 2019 (UTC) Would this be concisdred a Pyrrhic Victory? "'''Someone who wins a '''Pyrrhic victory has also taken a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement." This is largley used to mean the victor suffered to many casualties. For example Battle of Bunker Hill. Danny's forces suffered no real heavy military casualties, and her goal of taking power was achieved, while her ruptation was destroyed her objective was achieved in a clear victory. I think the Battle proper should be seperate from John killing her. 50.000 Dothraki? It says 50.000 Dothraki light cavalry at the House Targaryen side, I seriously doubt they were that much... We've seen at least half of the Dothraki destroyed at Winterfell, they should be 20.000, and even that I am not sure about it... Marcohhhh (talk) 14:10, June 12, 2019 (UTC) Its said half are gone. Battle of Winterfell based on 100k Dothraki. Based on it being called the "greatest army in history" by Tyrion. Keep in my Tyrion would have received reports on Renly's army size it makes sense that the total strength is below. Sansa says there are 20,000 men at Winterfell, Jon says there are 10,000 Northmen left in the North. Option 1: *100,000 Dothraki *8,000 Unsullied *10,000 Northmen *10,000 Valemen Option 2: Based on the 40k Dothraki figure provided way back in the Battle of the Bastards screenplay *40,000 Dothraki *8,000 Unsullied *10,000 Northmen *10,000 Valemen Aftermath This section needs a MAJOR overhaul because it pretty much covers everything in the Assassination of Daenerys Targaryen article. I'll work on it myself later on if no one else gets to it first, but still this section needs to be more focused and concise. Shaneymike (talk) 17:37, December 7, 2019 (UTC) : And so are tons of other articles... *sigh* This overspecification is like a plague. For instance, the topmost paragraphs of characters' articles. I've been working lately on such articles, but there is so much more to be done. Moonracer (talk) 07:38, December 8, 2019 (UTC)